ID isn’t Science?
A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?
I’m willing to concede the point, but I have a question: just how is the theory of evolution empirically disprovable?
EDIT: Also check out critiques by Tom Gilson and Lawrence Selden.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Show a creature has decreased overall complexity from a previously more complex creature.
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Um… no.
WordNet’s definition of “evolution”: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)
Notice it says “especially”… not “exclusively.” The example you give would still support the theory of evolution.